We need your feedback on an update to the rarity system!

[onion]

-snip-

I love the colours and the shininess but one thing is really bugging me: SC and VC should be swapped. If Very Rare is less than Super Rare then Very Common MUST be less than Super Common. Except linguistically when it's out of acronyms that doesn't make sense. This is why I think we should move to single words, as Feather <3 suggested. I understand that new words may have an arbitrary meaning and not make sense, but if they are unique I feel this is less of a problem? Fabled and Legendary may not be understood out of context but all you'd have to remember is F<L which for me is easier than ER<VR as a visual distinction.

The super common and very common are correct in that order. If something is 'super common' it means that it is MORE common, i.e., closer to 'OMG so common'. On the other end of the scale, if something is 'super rare' it means it is MORE rare i.e., closer to 'OMG so rare'.

I hope this makes sense, it's hard to verbalise :)

thank you for this comment because i was having a hard time wrapping my head around this too until you explained it this way!!!

This makes no sense whatsoever. It shouldn't be that way. Rare will always be less in circulation than uncommon. I'm honestly so mindboggled by this belief because other than "older pets are more likely to have found their forever home" which I don't really buy given the amount of pets in the pound and how people give away and trade pets from locked groups all the time, there is literally no reason to ever believe an uncommon is equal to or worth more than a rare. I can understand the date stuff in regards to the same rarity where we can't be sure where they fall on a range (which this should fix by making those ranges much smaller), but this is just. Nonsensical.

The thing is, we can't just start to ignore the dates of pets. It doesn't make sense just because of the fact that rare+ pets are re-released while any rarity above/below (omgsc-uc) isn't. Older pets are simply less distributed than recent pets. I can find the recent event pets that turned rare left and right (honestly every year I get surprised by the fact so many pets turn rare cause they actually don't feel that rare???) while many commons/uncommons from the years 2011-2015 practicably have become extinct. Maybe the redistribution of rarities would solve this problem by putting those in new categories.

I have to say that I’m completely bewildered by this perspective because trading by rarity alone is probably the most ideal outcome for the system. :0 if players traded by rarity and demand/species/dates weren’t factors, then trading would be so smooth and seamless. common for common, rare for rare, omgsr for omgsr. I don’t necessarily think that would happen because I think demand will always be a factor - for better or worse - but I have to fully disagree and say that I would see it completely the opposite; that moving towards a trading system more dependent on rarity than any other factor would fix so many current issues with trading on CS.

The question is, how in particular does it solve this problem? The pets would be needed to be recounted. Account activity needs to be acknowledged. Giving out new rarities is only one thing that needs to be done to fix a broken system, a system that is more living from greed and desparation than anything else.

I came back from hiatus about half a week before the summer event started; and finding out what some pets have skyrockteted to made me wish I wouldn't have come back.

i have to agree with loelya. and vaal, i still have the worm for your store pet. i was asleep when you sent the trade and cancelled it. :p

[jayfeather100]

I know the four rarities added can seem very intimidating and it did to me at first too until I read what nick wrote.
I think they will be able to kelp quite a lot.
I’m not sure what rarities will become the base rarities since like uncommon and common are distinct and I often do struggle with monthly pets and getting busy and then having to trade for my missing ones after they get rarities which can be stressful.
But also when you’re trading a bunch of older pets you need and then newer ones the rarities definitely get in the way and it gets confusing and I think the middle ground rarities will really help and make trades way smoother.
The colors will be pleasing to look at too.

I wanted to trade a old uncommon and other commons that are older and the person has a bunch on their wishlist that I have but it gets so confusing and I want it to be fair for us both. It will definitely help if the pets are summed up better and people might have to be open to trading a very uncommon with an uncommon since there might not be many of the same uncommons in a monthly litter.

[Kwolf1998]

I'm between option 2 and option 3. I think adding 4 new categories would overly complicate things. It would start to get more confusing with all of the different rarities, especially with the distribution of many of the new categories being so close to one another. I think the addition of just the one new category may be a better option in my opinion.

I would agree with you! I think adding four would over complicate it. Especially for new players. I don't completely hate the idea though. I do think option 2 would be better.

[rootspring]

personally i feel that adding 4 more rarities will be overwhelming, cluttered, and will make it harder to trade. with four new rarities i might even stop playing altogether!
it’s hard enough trading between rarities as is, and this will pretty much completely overhaul the trading system.

[Pyromaniacal]

I made a mockup of the "star" rarity bar system using colors and graphics similar to the current rarity bars, plus a potential proposition for colors - though I'll admit I worked this up before seeing Fellefan's colors a few pages ago, and mine are fairly different & a little rough around the edges. More of a proof of concept / general visualization than anything, though at least with the star system if the colors are more similar it matters somewhat less. (There can also be an argument for similar colors suggesting that the different rarity categories are closer to each other than the old/current ones, and encouraging more trading up/down/between tiers.)

[tenor]

I made a mockup of the "star" rarity bar system using colors and graphics similar to the current rarity bars, plus a potential proposition for colors - though I'll admit I worked this up before seeing Fellefan's colors a few pages ago, and mine are fairly different & a little rough around the edges. More of a proof of concept / general visualization than anything, though at least with the star system if the colors are more similar it matters somewhat less. (There can also be an argument for similar colors suggesting that the different rarity categories are closer to each other than the old/current ones, and encouraging more trading up/down/between tiers.)

i love this !!

[Froggieee]

I made a mockup of the "star" rarity bar system using colors and graphics similar to the current rarity bars, plus a potential proposition for colors - though I'll admit I worked this up before seeing Fellefan's colors a few pages ago, and mine are fairly different & a little rough around the edges. More of a proof of concept / general visualization than anything, though at least with the star system if the colors are more similar it matters somewhat less. (There can also be an argument for similar colors suggesting that the different rarity categories are closer to each other than the old/current ones, and encouraging more trading up/down/between tiers.)

This is amazing!

[Lex.]

I made a mockup of the "star" rarity bar system using colors and graphics similar to the current rarity bars, plus a potential proposition for colors - though I'll admit I worked this up before seeing Fellefan's colors a few pages ago, and mine are fairly different & a little rough around the edges. More of a proof of concept / general visualization than anything, though at least with the star system if the colors are more similar it matters somewhat less. (There can also be an argument for similar colors suggesting that the different rarity categories are closer to each other than the old/current ones, and encouraging more trading up/down/between tiers.)

This is great!

[kivr & fireflii]

I made a mockup of the "star" rarity bar system using colors and graphics similar to the current rarity bars, plus a potential proposition for colors - though I'll admit I worked this up before seeing Fellefan's colors a few pages ago, and mine are fairly different & a little rough around the edges. More of a proof of concept / general visualization than anything, though at least with the star system if the colors are more similar it matters somewhat less. (There can also be an argument for similar colors suggesting that the different rarity categories are closer to each other than the old/current ones, and encouraging more trading up/down/between tiers.)

THIS THIS THIS!!!!
-fireflii

[Tuxedo Mask]

I made a mockup of the "star" rarity bar system using colors and graphics similar to the current rarity bars, plus a potential proposition for colors - though I'll admit I worked this up before seeing Fellefan's colors a few pages ago, and mine are fairly different & a little rough around the edges. More of a proof of concept / general visualization than anything, though at least with the star system if the colors are more similar it matters somewhat less. (There can also be an argument for similar colors suggesting that the different rarity categories are closer to each other than the old/current ones, and encouraging more trading up/down/between tiers.)

This is amazing !!